Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[standingfirminChrist]

The answer you seek from Bob Ryan has been answered over and over and ove and... well, you get the point... no, I guess you don't.

It has been answered. You just don't want to accept the truth.

Unto us a child is born
Unto us a Son is given.

It does not get any poainer than that.

 

[Matt Black]

Please make it plain so that we can be in no doubt, then, where you stand theologically on this absolutely vital Christological issue: is that child, that Son, God?

 

[bound]

The "all" here is referring to the remnant living during the Tribulation Period, when Christ shall appear. When He comes, they ALL shall be saved. "He came to his own; and his own received him not."

Well, I believe it is good that you don't take every statement of 'all' to literally mean 'Everyone' that has ever lived.

1Cor.1:5 simply refers to spiritual gifts. The Corinthian Church had them all. And they abused them. Paul deals with this problem quite extensively in chapters 12 to 14.

Yep. Again I'm glad that you don't take every statement of 'all' to literally mean 'Everything'.

Every person in the Bible is made righteous in the same way--putting their faith in Christ. Righteousness comes by belief or faith, and no other way. Mary was a sinner, made righteous in the same way that Abraham was--she believed God and righteousness was imputed unto her. There were no works involved to make her righteous.

Christ, the annointed one, is God. They were made 'righteous' by God's Grace-filled participation in and with them in a regenerative act of renewal. I dare say we agree with regard to Justification DHK. My guess is that where we may differ is that you might subscribe to the idea that Grace is to no effect in the life of a believer.

Note: I am not claiming that this is what you believe but if I had to guess our differences 'might' rest there. I believe Justification 'renews' man in a holistic relationship in Christ and that Sanctification is growth 'not' only in the sence of moral conviction but of 'true' participation in God's Will. This participation is what sanctifies us in the many blessings and graces given to believers in a life which is obedient. Remember, we are not talking about Justification. The believer is already Justified. I'm talking about Sanctification. Mary wasn't inherently sinful as if it was a posession of her Human Nature. She like us had faith which God imputed as righteousness. She was not Perfect in some kind of supernatural sense but she did 'share' in the overflowing graces of God and she is reap rewards in heaven for her participation in God's plan of Salvation. She did spend most if not all of her life under God's favor. That doesn't mean she couldn't error but my guess would be someone with that kind of intimacy with God and His Will would be admirable to encounter.

Of course not. However Noah's righteousness came by faith just like any other believer's.

Righteousness is never thought of as an inherent possession or attribute of our Human Nature. It is always a gift from God. You act as this somehow degates the Teachings of the ECF. They knew this. This was not something new which was birthed out of the Reformation. Again read my thread on "What is Justification".

Where the ECF might differ from modern Reformation Theology might be in recognizing the true reward and life of the Saints in heaven Sanctified and made Brothers and Sisters of Christ. That is what the ECF mean when they speak of Deification. It is not making the 'self' God. It is putting away 'truly' the Old Self so that all that is left is 'Christ in you'. Paul did this. Why do you think he 'fought the good fight'? It wasn't for Justification, it was for Sanctification that he struggled, just as we all 'should'. When we put away the passions which bind us to our 'Carnal Selves' we more fully embrace our inheritance in Christ and more fully participate in the Grace and Will of God here and now. It is a foretaste.

There is no foreshadow, and they are equals. Both were sinners and both were made righteous by faith.

Perhaps you are conflating Justification with the differing rewards in heaven and the differing degrees in which we can participate in the graces and blessing of God in our lives. No event in history is more significant that the birth, life, death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. All involved enjoyed much graces and blessing from God and their lives abounded in much trials. I dare say they have reaped reward in heaven.

I stay away from allegorizing the Bible at the expense of throwing doctrine down the gutter. Once you start allegorizing (as you are doing), there is no telling where you will stop. You can make the Bible say anything you want.

Perhaps you should offer a definition of what you think Foreshadows are? We know that the risen Lord showed His own foreshadows to the Disciples on the Way to Emmaus... We know that Paul uses Allegories from the Old Testament. Were they both in error?

William Branham allegorizes and comes to the conclusion that original sin is Eve having sex with the Serpent. If you are prone to believe such nonsense go ahead, but I believe the Bible literally, and when common sense makes good sense why make it into nonsense! If there is no indication to spiritualize the text, then it shouldn't be done.

Allegory is truly a 'sense' in which the Scriptures can and do 'speak to the Spirit within us'. What you are conflating with Allegory is false presumptions. I don't believe a parallel is merited here at all. Did Paul error in using Allegory concerning Abraham? What of Elisabeth and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael? Did he error in using Allegory there? Should the Song of Songs 'not' be understood as Allegory? Is it merely an erotic poem? I'm sorry DHK but I don't believe your concerned is merited.

That is really too bad. The true canon is the Canon of Scriptures. There is no other authority that one needs but the inspired Word of God. I am not interested in the words of men, but in the words of God.

What was 'more' true the fact that these 'events' actually happened for was it the fact that they were written down? It is more important that Christ truly was born, lived, died and was resurrected or is it more important that we have stories that tell us a story about this fact?

The 'true' canon or measure is the 'Holy Spirit' which inspired not only the 'records of these events' but the 'events themselves'.

[to be continued]

 

[bound]

I am not interested in "consensual teachings." I am interested in what the Bible teaches. Show me through Scripture where I am wrong. Convince me through the Word of God, not through the ECF, and various councils of which I do not care about.

Could you define 'Exegesis' and 'Isegesis' for me?

The Holy Spirit does not dwell in unbelievers, even if some consider the part of the ECF. So what is your point here?

We will know them by their fruits. Look at their works and you can see a thread of consensual teachings throughout time. Such is argued to be the 'true' Church led by the Holy Spirit into All Truth. It is valuable to us in the modern day to ponder the ECF for no other reason than to 'test' our own exegesis for historic Christian synergy.

You need to study this verse out.
The Greek word for "perfect" is teleios. It means mature or complete. It in no way means sinless, and that is not what Christ was speaking about, for no man can be perfect as in sinless. Only God is sinless. The Lord was teaching us to be complete in Him. We are complete when we exercise or show forth the fruit of the Spirit. The Old English word "perfect" also means "complete."

And what does mature and complete mean to you? Simply Justified or Fully Sanctified?

Like I said, you misunderstand the word "perfect" and thus have made up a doctrine that isn't scriptural. Do a study on that particular word before you go astray. The Lord never gives a command that is impossible for his children to obey.

The primitive disciplines of Sanctification can be found very very early in the works of the Apostolic Fathers. I dare say such evidence weighs against your assertions here.

Mary is not a "type." There may be qualities in her life that may be exemplary. But she is not a type.

Define what you think I mean by 'type'.

The Greek word ekklesia means assembly.

Just 'assembly'? Do you honestly think that Paul thought the Church was a political associations? You do know the 'root' for ekklesia don't you? Do you honestly believe the Church which 'is' the Body of Christ should be limited to the 'root' meaning of ekklesia?

Your theology is off. It is impossible for their to be only one church according to the meaning of the word. There is no universal church. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.

Is it really? It is impossible to have a Virgin Birth or Christ in us?

I am an IFB, and speak out of my own knowledge. I don't speak for the board. I speak out of my own convictions based on the Word of God. If I am wrong then show me from the Bible where I am wrong.

Brother, I can appreciate your belief in this but if we could define Exegesis and Isegesis we could talk further on this idea of one assuming they interpret the word of God without bias or influence from their tradition.

I was a Catholic for 20 years. Then you could have accused me of being taught by Tradition. But don't accuse me of that now. My beliefs come solely from the Bible, as I study it. I don't even bother to read the ECF. It is the Word of God that is inspired and authority. Christ commanded us to search the Scriptures, and so we should.

But He also deposited with His Disciples a exegesis for the scriptures (See Emmaus). This canon or measure was handed down and is the 'key' to the salvific life found in the Spirit which is nourished in His word.

There is no knowledge more authentic and more authoritative than the inspired Word of God. You can go your way and study the works of men. As for me I will continue to study the word of God. It is not "being a Baptist" that you erroneously label me, but a student of the Word of God. Yes I belong to an Independent Baptist Church. But what is important is to be a student of the Word of God, to search out its truth. The so-called "consensual teachings of the church of the living God" is peanuts compared to the teachings of the Word of God, when a believer studies that Word prayerfully asking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Our Lord spoke the parables. They had value, for those with ears to hear. Our Lord explained what he spoke in mystery to His Disciples. Yes we have some of these teachings written down for us and truly the Scriptures is truth and light but even the Devil uses them to confuse and mislead those without the 'true' canon or measure.

Scripture in and of itself is not salvific only the Spirit Saves not words but The Word, Jesus Christ.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

There is no "INCARNATION" of God simply by having the biological event of birth. ALL of our mothers "supplied the flesh" and NONE of us are "INCARNATE GOD" -- because biology has nothing to do with getting to the result -- which in the case of incarnation is - "God". BIOLOGY gets you to the MAN the BIOLOGY - the HUMAN part of the equation - but not the GOD part.

Bob, I have no clue why this is so difficult for you to understand…Theotokos says nothing of Mary being the Mother of God the Father…NOTHING.

Through Mary, God the Son was clothed with flesh…this event, this Incarnation, happened in Mary’s womb!

Mary did NOT clothed Jesus with His Divinity.

A little history lesson for you Bob, to help this sink in…

The Council of 431 argued, that Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, or God with us. The person, who is named Emmanuel, is in fact God, according to Isaiah 7.14. And this very prophetic text states that …a woman shall conceive, and bear a son… I.e., this woman shall be the one who bears Emmanuel, who is God. Put more straightforwardly, and eminently biblically, this woman (Mary) shall bear God, or be the God bearer, which is precisely what Theotokos means.

So the Bible NEVER (no not even once in all of scripture) refers to Mary as "MOTHER of GOD" or "WISER than GOD" or "PROTECTOR OF GOD" or "STRONGER than GOD" or "CORRECTOR of GOD" or "INSTRUCTOR of God".

We find in the Holy Scripture the approach of Elizabeth when Mary came to her, in Luke 1.43… Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? In the Apostolic Scriptures, the term Lord had clearly come to be seen as a formal recognition of the Godhead of Christ (In the Jewish Scriptures, we frequently see YHWH referred to as the Lord God, while in the New Testament, we see the two words split apart, but together, as in One God, the Father, and One Lord, Jesus Christ.

St. Paul says in Romans 10 that …if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus…. you shall be saved…, a plain reference to having faith in the Lord who is God, Who alone can offer salvation. And so, Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit (and a leaping John the Baptist!), declares quite plainly that Mary is the Mother of my God.

Hope that helps, but something tells me…its useless.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

Bob, I have no clue why this is so difficult for you to understand…Theotokos says nothing of Mary being the Mother of God the Father…NOTHING.
-

If the term means "God-bearer" as you assert, the only conclusion that one can come to is that you deny the trinity. That much is obvious.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

If the term means "God-bearer" as you assert, the only conclusion that one can come to is that you deny the trinity. That much is obvious.

Was the PERSON in Mary's womb God the Son (God the Word)--the Second Person of the Trinity? YES or NO?

 

[DHK]

Was the PERSON in Mary's womb God the Son (God the Word)--the Second Person of the Trinity? YES or NO?

I am not going to keep jumping through hoops and repeating myself as I have for the last twenty some pages. I listed a number of posts where I gave that information already. But you still do not believe.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I am not going to keep jumping through hoops and repeating myself as I have for the last twenty some pages. I listed a number of posts where I gave that information already. But you still do not believe.

You have not unambiguously answered the question, but have rather made ambiguous and contradictory statements in your responses, even within the same paragraph.

So YES or NO--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb in fact God the Son (the Word), the Second Person of the Trinity?

You don't need to "jump through hoops"--"yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

[DHK]

You have not unambiguously answered the question, but have rather made ambiguous and contradictory statements in your responses, even within the same paragraph.

So YES or NO--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb in fact God the Son (the Word), the Second Person of the Trinity?

You don't need to "jump through hoops"--"yes" or "no" will suffice.

See previous posts. I tire of people that refuse to read.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

See previous posts. I tire of people that refuse to read.

I've read them DHK, and you haven't clearly stated "yes" or "no". Your answers have been ambiguous to stay the least (and at times contractory).

So, "YES" or "NO"--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb the Second Person of the Trinity (ie God the Son/Word)???

(Or are you for some reason afraid to answer "yes" or "no"?)

 

[D28guy]

Bob Ryan,

Its from the 44th chapter of Jeremiah, beginning with the 17th verse.

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

BTW, do you care to respond to this post (from earlier today)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
I have never said otherwise. Christ has always been God--always. He never gave up his deity, not even for one second. To say otherwise would be heresy. OTOH, to say that Mary is the mother of God is also heresy. She was simply a vessel that God used in one point in history to bring forth Christ. She never was his mother. Christ had no mother. He existed from all eternity.


Wow, I'm stunned. That statement is truly incredible coming from a so-called "biblicist".

What saith the Scriptures?

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother was betrothed to Joseph...." Matthew 1:18

Was Matthew wrong is saying Mary was the mother of Christ?

"And when they [the wise men] had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him." Matthew 2:11

Again, it refers to the mother of the Child. Was Matthew wrong in saying Mary was His mother?
Or do you suppose the Child was other than Christ?

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (said Elizabeth to Mary) Luke 1:43

Was Elizabeth wrong is saying Mary was the mother of her Lord?

"And Joseph and His mother marveled at the things which were spoken of Him." Luke 2:33

Was Luke wrong in referring to Mary as His mother?
Or the "His" refer to someone other than Christ?

(Of course there are many more Scriptures stating that Mary was in fact the mother of Christ Jesus)

Do you now want to retract your statements that "Mary never

 

[DHK]

BTW, do you care to respond to this post (from earlier today)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
I have never said otherwise. Christ has always been God--always. He never gave up his deity, not even for one second. To say otherwise would be heresy. OTOH, to say that Mary is the mother of God is also heresy. She was simply a vessel that God used in one point in history to bring forth Christ. She never was his mother. Christ had no mother. He existed from all eternity.


Wow, I'm stunned. That statement is truly incredible coming from a so-called "biblicist".

What saith the Scriptures?

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother was betrothed to Joseph...." Matthew 1:18

Was Matthew wrong is saying Mary was the mother of Christ?

"And when they [the wise men] had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him." Matthew 2:11

Again, it refers to the mother of the Child. Was Matthew wrong in saying Mary was His mother?
Or do you suppose the Child was other than Christ?

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (said Elizabeth to Mary) Luke 1:43

Was Elizabeth wrong is saying Mary was the mother of her Lord?

"And Joseph and His mother marveled at the things which were spoken of Him." Luke 2:33

Was Luke wrong in referring to Mary as His mother?
Or the "His" refer to someone other than Christ?

(Of course there are many more Scriptures stating that Mary was in fact the mother of Christ Jesus)

Do you now want to retract your statements that "Mary never

Mary was never the mother of the Eternal Word, the Mother of God, the "God-bearer," i.e., the trinity, the Father, etc., and all that that term "theotokos" would therefore imply.
Scripture must harmonize with Scripture.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

A body was prepared by the Father for Christ.
Mary did not prepare the body, but the Father.
The meaning of this verse is that Christ "assumed" a body.

To call Mary "mother" is somewhat like an anthropormorphism. It is put in simple language so that we can understand. It is not put in theological language. Just as Isaiah 43:10 does the same when it says "I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." God doesn't have a right hand. "God is spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." A spirit has no physical form. God has no right arm or hand. It is an anthropormorphism, a term to help us understand what God is like.

Obviously Mary acted in the capacity of a mother, an adoptive Mother to the child Jesus. Jesus never relinquished his deity. But he did lay aside his divine attributes for a time. God has no mother. Mary only acted in the capacity of a mother.
This became very obvious at different times in the ministry of Jesus:

Woman what have I to do with thee.
Woman behold thy son.

There was a distance put between Mary (the adoptive mother), and Mary, a believer in Christ, no different than any other believer present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost where 120 others were praying. They were all equals. Mary was never worshiped. She never had any exaltation above any other person at any time.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If the term means "God-bearer" as you assert, the only conclusion that one can come to is that you deny the trinity. That much is obvious.

Uhhh, no I don’t deny the Trinity DHK…not sure how you come to that conclusion, but the Theotokos, that which was formally affirmed during the Third Ecumenical Council was a defense against Nestorius who claimed that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning Mary’s the mother of Christ’s humanity only. It was an attack against Jesus Christ and His two natures as one.

To say such a thing is to divide Jesus into two distinct persons, thus destroying the perfect union of the divine and the human natures in Christ.

Even if you want to keep shouting “Christ laid aside His divinity”, Christ in Mary’s womb, kicking and wiggling remained not only 100% divine, but 100% human.

When Mary pushed her last and Jesus Christ emerged, he emerged a babe, 100% divine, yet 100% human. Jesus Christ is God, thus the babe Mary gave birth to was God in the flesh!

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Mary was never the mother of the Eternal Word, the Mother of God, the "God-bearer," i.e., the trinity, the Father, etc., and all that that term "theotokos" would therefore imply.

Once again, was the PERSON in Mary's womb the Eternal Word, the Second Person of the Trinity? YES or NO??

To call Mary "mother" is somewhat like an anthropormorphism. It is put in simple language so that we can understand. It is not put in theological language. Just as Isaiah 43:10 does the same when it says "I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." God doesn't have a right hand. "God is spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." A spirit has no physical form. God has no right arm or hand. It is an anthropormorphism, a term to help us understand what God is like.

Wow...so in saying Mary's "motherhood" is an "anthropomorphism" are you denying Christ's real humanity?

Obviously Mary acted in the capacity of a mother, an adoptive Mother to the child Jesus. Jesus never relinquished his deity. But he did lay aside his divine attributes for a time. God has no mother. Mary only acted in the capacity of a mother.
This became very obvious at different times in the ministry of Jesus:

Woman what have I to do with thee.
Woman behold thy son.

There was a distance put between Mary (the adoptive mother), and Mary, a believer in Christ, no different than any other believer present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost where 120 others were praying. They were all equals. Mary was never worshiped. She never had any exaltation above any other person at any time.

Where in Scriptures does it ever say Mary was Jesus's "adoptive" mother?
Did she adopt Jesus?
Was Jesus not really the "seed of a woman"? nor born of a woman (Gal 4:4)?
Nor the "seed of David according to the flesh" (as Paul says in Romans 1:3)?

 

[BobRyan]

So, "YES" or "NO"--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb the Second Person of the Trinity (ie God the Son/Word)???

(Or are you for some reason afraid to answer "yes" or "no"?)

Was the Person Mary trained "the God-man Jesus"? Yes!

So "Trainer of God"?

Joseph - "Instructor of God"??

Mary - "Wiser than God"?

Joseph "Corrector of God"?

Mary "Stronger than God"??

But ignoring this obvious point we have --

So, "YES" or "NO"--was the PERSON in Mary's Womb the Second Person of the Trinity (ie God the Son/Word)???

Bringing us to the next obvious point -

Being 100% divine had nothing to do with Mary or Biology.

Biology is not a pathway to being God



What was Mary the "instructor of"?

What was Mary the "wiser than"?

What was Mary teaching "to add" when he was a small child?

What was Mary "correcting" when he was a small child?

What was Mary "protecting" when he was an infant?

...

"Corrector of God"

"Wiser than God"

"Protector of God"

... Odd how these all serve to exault the HUMAN parent to "QUEEN of the UNIVERSE" rather than exaulting Christ.

To the point that (predictably) we NOW see pictures and images of MARY the adult holding a "tiny Jesus" and we read about worship/prayers "at Mary's altars"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Was Luke wrong in referring to Mary as His mother?
Or the "His" refer to someone other than Christ?

"Jesus said"

Never "God said -- this is My Mother"

Never "Mary - Mother of God"

No not even ONCE in all of scripture!

For such error you need the traditions of man - because you do not find it in scripture.

The Bible tells the story of the INCARNATION of God the Son.

The RCC and a few other denominations following in her footsteps prefers to use the PROCREATION term "Mary the MOTHER of God" though it is not found even ONCE in all of scripture!

Leading the RCC on to "The QUEEN of the UNIVERSE" adoration and exaultation of the HUMAN PARENT of GOD who is given the PROCREATION role even to the point of needing an "immaculate conception" herself!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

(1) Was Mary Jesus's mother--yes or no?

Yes, therefore the Bible calls her " Mother of Jesus", not mother of God !!!

(2) Was Jesus God or man or both?

Jesus was God and Man. But because of the Trinity, NOBODY in the Bible called her " Mother of God", except the stupid, foolish godess worshippers in later times.

 

[Eliyahu]

Is James, the Brother of Jesus, Brother of God?

Does anyone call King David as Great Great Grand Father of God?

Who calls Adam the Ancestor of God ?

Only the stupid people are trappped in the human syllogism.